THE PECULARITIES OF CLIL IN TEACHING ENGLISH
Abstract
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has gained prominence as an effective approach for teaching English in Uzbekistan. This article explores the peculiarities of implementing CLIL in the Uzbek context, focusing on its benefits, challenges, and strategies for successful application. Through a comprehensive literature review and analysis, the study highlights the potential of CLIL to enhance language acquisition, cognitive development, and subject knowledge. The article also discusses the need for teacher training, appropriate materials, and institutional support to overcome the challenges associated with CLIL implementation.
Keywords
How to Cite
References
Isamukhamedova, N. (2020). The role of CLIL in teaching English in Uzbekistan. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 3(6), 1-6.
. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204.
. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367-375.
. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan.
. Irgasheva, M. (2020). Challenges and opportunities of implementing CLIL in Uzbekistan. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 8(6), 76-81.
. Ziyayeva, L. (2021). The potential of CLIL in enhancing English language learning in Uzbekistan. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(3), 22-28.
. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University Press.
. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562.
. Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (2001). Translating CLIL: A Review of Research.
. Pavesi, M., Bertoni, G., & Gavioli, L. (2012). CLIL in Action: Insights from Research and Practice.
. Marsh, D., & Langé, G. (2000). Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages: A Guide to Content and Language Integrated Learning.
. Mehisto, P., & Marsh, D. (2011). Approaching the economic, cognitive and health benefits of bilingualism: Fuel for CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 21-47). Peter Lang.
. Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 14-15.
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Kakhramon Kuralov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
